340 Recht
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (91) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (53)
- Part of a Book (23)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (6)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
- Other (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Journal/Publication series (1)
Language
- English (91) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (91)
Keywords
- Paris Agreement (4)
- governance (3)
- intergovernmental relations (3)
- non-state actors (3)
- COVID-19 (2)
- administrative culture (2)
- crisis (2)
- crisis management (2)
- federalism (2)
- window of opportunity (2)
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (40)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (18)
- Bürgerliches Recht (13)
- Sozialwissenschaften (8)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (6)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (4)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (2)
- Juristische Fakultät (2)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Berlin Potsdam Research Group "The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline?" (1)
We welcome you to the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) conference. After joining with Intentional Forgetting Minitrack last year, this is the fourth year of the Organizational Learning Minitrack. We add Unlearning, and Intentional Forgetting to proudly bring you the latest research focused on organizational learning issues within the Knowledge Innovation and Entrepreneurial Systems Track. The ability to update, change and use current knowledge effectively, especially in light of the ongoing knowledge explosion, can be costly for any organization. Organizations that consider themselves “learning” or “knowledge-based” organizations must develop a competent workforce using KM strategies. Success in organizations involves developing a variety of human factors for changing competencies. With technological change, modification and revisions, many skills require updating for a competitive advantage in the marketplace. The focus on new techniques and insights into how individuals and organizations use their knowledge is our focus for the improvement of organizational learning in this Minitrack.
Scholars have recently devoted increasing attention to the role and function of international bureaucracies in global policymaking. Some of them contend that international public officials have gained significant political influence in various policy fields. Compared to other international bureaucracies, the political leeway of the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been considered rather limited. Due to the specific problem structure of the policy domain of climate change, national governments endowed this intergovernmental treaty secretariat with a relatively narrow mandate. However, this article argues that in the past few years, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has gradually loosened its straitjacket and expanded its original spectrum of activity by engaging different sub-national and non-state actors into a policy dialogue using facilitative orchestration as a mode of governance. The present article explores the recent evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat and investigates the way in which it initiates, guides, broadens and strengthens sub-national and non-state climate actions to achieve progress in the international climate negotiations. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has lately adopted new roles and functions in global climate policymaking. While previously seen as a rather technocratic body that, first and foremost, serves national governments, the Climate Secretariat increasingly interacts with sub-national governments, civil society organizations and private companies to push the global response to climate change forward. We contend that the Climate Secretariat can contribute to global climate policymaking by coordinating and steering the initiatives of non-nation-state actors towards coherence and good practice.
Private international law (PIL) might seem disconnected from peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts. However, this perception falls short. PIL, contrary to public international law’s direct peacekeeping potential, indirectly contributes to peace by fostering mutual respect between states. The relationship between PIL and peace stems from the recognition and respect states show for each other’s legal systems. PIL operates on the principle of comity, where states acknowledge the applicability of foreign laws to resolve cases. In essence, while PIL’s impact on peace is indirect and modest, its emphasis on mutual respect and fair treatment contributes to peaceful relations between states, making it an important element in the broader context of peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts. Private international law (PIL) does not determine substantive fairness for parties but focuses on localizing cases at a meta-level of conflict-of-laws. This localization is guided by party, trade, and regulatory interests, and is rooted in neutrality and respect for other legal systems. While the principle of equivalence and neutrality remains foundational in PIL, exceptions and limitations have been established over time to address specific scenarios, ensuring a balanced approach that respects both foreign legal systems and fundamental legal principles.
Cross-national variation in the relationship between welfare generosity and single mother employment
(2022)
Reform of the U.S. welfare system in 1996 spurred claims that cuts to welfare programs effectively incentivized single mothers to find employment. It is difficult to assess the veracity of those claims, however, absent evidence of how the relationship between welfare benefits and single mother employment generalizes across countries. This study combines data from the European Union Labour Force Survey and the U.S. Current Population Survey (1992-2015) into one of the largest samples of single mothers ever, testing the relationships between welfare generosity and single mothers’ employment and work hours. We find no consistent evidence of a negative relationship between welfare generosity and single mother employment outcomes. Rather, we find tremendous cross-national heterogeneity, which does not clearly correspond to well-known institutional variations. Our findings demonstrate the limitations of single country studies and the pervasive, salient interactions between institutional contexts and social policies.
Gary Jacobsohn and Yaniv Roznai’s (2020) book Constitutional Revolution offers a sophisticated conceptual framework with a fascinating description of empirical occurrences of substantive revolutions in the practice and understanding of constitutionalism in Germany, India, Hungary, and Israel. While the conceptualization in the book and its empirical illustration clearly draw from regime transformations or substantive changes within democratic regimes, we know little about the extent to which substantive constitutional reforms are possible and meaningful in autocratic regimes. As their concept of constitutional revolution is ambiguous and requires a substantive engagement with an individual case at hand, we cannot sim- ply expect concept equivalence when expanding its use beyond a transitory or democratic context. Hence, in this contribution I ask, What constitutes a constitutional revolution in an autocratic regime? To shed light on this question, I rely on the expectation that we do not find important differences in the substance of autocratic constitutions compared to democratic constitutions. Autocratic elites, also, under- stand the possibilities of constitutional change and respond to them as they offer regime stability and simply more power, but that is not a revolution. Therefore, I argue that the substantive meaning of an amendment must be a departure from the inherent logic of the constitution, especially outside the standard procedures for autocratic ruling. Thus, in this paper I discuss the theoretical implications of a constitutional revolution under autocracy without a regime transition and provide empirical evidence from various constitutional amendments and de facto reforms in Russia. I show that a constitutional revolution is not always the most important or most discussed constitutional change—at least, not in an autocratic context. This discussion has important implications for understanding constitutionalism and autocratic stability and the largely overlooked relationship between substance and process in nondemocratic settings.
Activating norm collisions
(2020)
This article puts forward a constructivist-interpretivist approach to interface conflicts that emphasises how international actors articulate and problematise norm collisions in discursive and social interactions. Our approach is decidedly agency-oriented and follows the Special Issue’s interest in how interface conflicts play out at the micro-level. The article advances several theoretical and methodological propositions on how to identify norm collisions and the conditions under which they become the subject of international debate. Our argument on norm collisions, understood as situations in which actors perceive two norms as incompatible with each other, is threefold. First, we claim that agency matters to the analysis of the emergence, dynamics, management, and effects of norm collisions in international politics. Second, we propose to differentiate between dormant (subjectively perceived) and open norm collisions (intersubjectively shared). Third, we contend that the transition from dormant to open – which we term activation – depends on the existence of certain scope conditions concerning norm quality as well as changes in power structures and actor constellations. Empirically, we study norm collisions in the area of international drug control, presenting the field as one that contains several cases of dormant and open norm collisions, including those that constitute interface conflicts. For our in-depth analysis we have chosen the international discourse on coca leaf chewing. With this case, we not only seek to demonstrate the usefulness of our constructivist-interpretivist approach but also aim to explain under which conditions dormant norm collisions evolve into open collisions and even into interface conflicts.
This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of ‘normal governance’ and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less – as in Germany and France – on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures.
This introduction and the special issue are a contribution to comparative intergovernmental studies and public administration. This introduction provides an analytical overview of the intergovernmental relations policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic across ten European countries, focussing on the early waves of the disease. These policy responses are analysed in terms of three types of IGR process: (1) a predominantly multi-layered policy process involving limited conflict, (2) a centralised policy process as the central government attempts to suppress conflict and (3) a conflicted policy process where such attempts are contested and tend to contribute to poor policy outcomes. The conclusion, then, reviews the difficulties and trade-offs involved in attaining a balanced multi-layered, intergovernmental process.